Let's talk again about Lemony's narrative

[Hermes]

Ook! I don't think that's a fair description of Dante's theories.

[Optimism is my Phil-osophy]

I had no words at the moment. I would say that their theories are generally conservative. But it's still not the best word to express what I mean ... You know someone who follows the path of the simplest logic and stifles creativity ... I may be saying things that look like I'm criticizing him, but it's not this ... I understand that the best of worlds is one in which theorists who have different styles compete with each other. The result is the progress of the fandom.Without his style, theories go crazy. Without my style they become boring.

[R.]

Nov 21, 2020 11:16:09 GMT -5 Optimism is my Phil-osophy said:

Due to what I have already explained, Lemony says to himself that he will publish the truth about the Baudelaires, and there is no concrete reason to doubt that.

Well, that is what Lemony says to himself, but it is quite possible that he is lying to himself as much as he is lying to others. Many people with strong opinions, and I know this from conversing with numerous theorists, are so convinced of their opinions that they begin to make up wild explanations for things that they are genuinely convinced are the truth. Also, you say that the Baudelaires could have been lying to Beatrice JR. However, we know that the Baudelaires were always honest with themselves, and they too acknowledged that they had done wrong. It is therefore quite likely that they would also tell the truth to Beatrice JR., in order to prevent her from going down the same path. Also, what about all the straight-up plot holes? Though plot holes happen in fiction, you don’t get them in life. The only explanation for this would be Lemony not telling the whole truth. In ATWQ we definitely see that Lemony has an overactive imagination, which he sometimes almost believes is real. What with the trauma of VFD and everything that has happened to him, it is possible that that could have gotten worse to the point where he is completely deluded.

[Optimism is my Phil-osophy]

Yes. You are right in every way. If Lemony told untruths, he wrote it because he believed in those untruths at the moment he wrote it, either because his evidence pointed to it or because he really wanted to believe it and ended up believing it. Like us, Lemony is a theorist. He makes statements based on evidence, but all theorists cling to their own ideas, and even if they struggle with it, being completely impartial and impersonal is impossible. Still, Lemony would not be trying to deceive the reader. He could accidentally mislead the reader. As you mentioned very well, the plot holes can be explained in Lemony's universe as Lemony's mistakes (and in our universe as Daniel H's mistakes or new ideas from him). Whether Lemony out Daniel Handler was wrong is a question that cannot be resolved. But surely someone did, or both did.

The Baudelaires were in fact honest with themselves. But do you realize R. what is the natural consequence of being honest with yourself? It is ashamed of your mistakes. The Baudelaires were ashamed of what happened at Hotel D, and this is evident when they go to Kit to talk about the fact. If I'm not mistaken, they hid some important details from her, didn't they?

Obs .: I don't want to make plans in PM because I want Dante to be prepared. Also, I don't want to be a bad example for you: it is very dangerous for an adult and a child to talk for a long time on PM on the internet. Don't do this to anyone, okay? Unfortunately, we live in a horrible world. You are smart, but there are wicked people who take advantage of people like you.

[Hermes]

'Cold and calculating' is normally used of villains.

[Dante]

I appreciate the defence, but I take no offence. Jean Lucio, too, has an overactive imagination. I advise him to cease attempting to mould roxy222's development, however. It's creepy, despite his attempts to remain reserved.

[Marlowe]

Nov 21, 2020 18:10:13 GMT -5 Optimism is my Phil-osophy said:

And that is the problem. I'm not fluent in English. I meant that I want you to be Dante's next rival by becoming a creative theorist as opposed to Dante's cold and calculating way of making theories.If you do, I will feel proud, as if I did it myself.

"Foil" and "analytical" might be better word choices than "rival" and "calculating" in this context. 

[Optimism is my Phil-osophy]

Thanks

[B.]

Nov 22, 2020 16:21:38 GMT -5 Dante said:

I advise him to cease attempting to mould roxy222's development, however. It's creepy, despite his attempts to remain reserved.

Literally never hit like on a post so fast

[Optimism is my Phil-osophy]

Ok ... I got carried away.

[R.]

It’s fine. What you said wasn’t creepy at all and I am more than happy to participate in this project to revolutionise theorising on 667 Dark Avenue.

[Hermes]

I'm beginning to see a fundamental difference in perspective here. You, Jean, and I think Roxy as well, see theorising as something worth doing for its own sake - I think you once said you aimed to create a theory once a month. I do not see myself as creating theories so much as solving puzzles. If what Lemony tells us is clear and straightforward I simply accept it; but when there is an apparent contradiction, then a theory is needed to overcome it. I think that, despite our many differences, Dante is closer to me here.

Take the most notorious of all theories, the Violet Theory. I have some specific objections to this theory, but I know they can be overcome; it's not impossible that Lemony is V's father. But my main reason for not believing the theory is just that there is no need for it; V can perfectly well be Bertrand's daughter, so I find it natural to accept that she is. For others, the idea of her being L's daughter is an exciting one, so they believe it. (I think it's noteworthy that thedoctororwell, alias The Snicket Sleuth, who is the archetypal theorist-for-its-own-sake, accepts the Violet Theory.)

[R.]

I am a big fan of his.

[Optimism is my Phil-osophy]

Hermes is the voice of reason after all. I can't be his rival. I fully understand what you mean, Hermes. The theory about Lemony being Violet's father isn't that exciting. I would be excited if all the Baudelires were Lemony's children, and I have even written about it. Because then there would be something to pursue, and that could imply other things. But a theory that does not lead to other conclusions or does not explain apparent contradictions, or does not expand concepts, or does not answer mysteries, does not help much at all. I mean, in general my theories have a reason for existing. Sometimes I don't make them so explicit, but they all have to go somewhere. Think about the theme of that thread. I subtly propose the discussion "How much is Lemony a reliable narrator?" If the answer is "Lemony is a reliable narrator", we soon have the question, "How did he get the detailed information?" If we respond with "by means of research some time after the event", we ask the question: "then do you admit that the masked ball happened after a few years of the main events?" and the question "so how do you explain the secret letter in TSS?", and then ask the question "so who did Lemony meet at the ball with?" All these questions were what made me think that Beatrice was alive. But then I came to the conclusion that Beatrice was not alive. So the questions still needed answers. And backwards the current responses are: "with an impostor", "Lemony did not know that Kit had died and was referring to the rebuilt Hotel D" and "yes". But of course, there may still be loose ends. And taking down and reassembling house of cards is a great pastime for me. I hope one day to build one so strong that no one will drop it.

[Marlowe]

Nov 23, 2020 9:47:43 GMT -5 Hermes said:

I'm beginning to see a fundamental difference in perspective here. You, Jean, and I think Roxy as well, see theorising as something worth doing for its own sake - I think you once said you aimed to create a theory once a month. I do not see myself as creating theories so much as solving puzzles. If what Lemony tells us is clear and straightforward I simply accept it; but when there is an apparent contradiction, then a theory is needed to overcome it. I think that, despite our many differences, Dante is closer to me here.

Take the most notorious of all theories, the Violet Theory. I have some specific objections to this theory, but I know they can be overcome; it's not impossible that Lemony is V's father. But my main reason for not believing the theory is just that there is no need for it; V can perfectly well be Bertrand's daughter, so I find it natural to accept that she is. For others, the idea of her being L's daughter is an exciting one, so they believe it. (I think it's noteworthy that thedoctororwell, alias The Snicket Sleuth, who is the archetypal theorist-for-its-own-sake, accepts the Violet Theory.)

Dante himself has summarized his position on this very eloquently:

Jun 19, 2019 4:24:04 GMT -5 Dante said:

This theory, perhaps more than the others you've written, is a good demonstration of why I particularly dislike the later school of ASoUE speculation. Step by step, enormous assumption by enormous assumption, unproven statement by unproven statement, they determine on crafting a version of ASoUE that no longer bears any resemblance to the original on a narrative or thematic level, rebuilding it according to their peculiar and often extremely cynical interests. Such theories are built, ultimately, on resentment of the original text; of the fact that it lacked the complexity it gestured to, that its grand hints pointed not to a hidden secret but to an author who made it up as he went along and was more interested in questions than answers (on the record). It's a good illustration of why theories are, ultimately, fanwork; unique subjective interpretations that say more about the fan than about the intentions of the author. If more theorists were honest about that, perhaps chiefly with themselves, perhaps I'd feel differently; but as it stands there are a lot of theorists who don't realise they're writing fanfiction. [...]

It's a shame that so many people want ASoUE to be something it isn't, even in the face of the story telling you as explicitly as it can that its author doesn't know the truth and you should make it up for yourself. Perhaps one day a series of books will be written that is everything those people want ASoUE to be, but I suspect if it was, they wouldn't be satisfied. Maybe they should instead take the message of The End to heart: Abandon the need for closure, and move on.

Jun 19, 2019 15:32:35 GMT -5 Dante said:

To chase after only what is possible, without regard for what is plausible, is a dark road for a theorist to follow. I've taken a brief sojourn down that road myself, for experimental purposes; you may read the wild and terrifying results here. Human beings have a psychological predisposition towards connections; merely the act of drawing one, however arbitrary, however wild, however hollowed of meaning or purpose, can prove an irresistible draw - it's why conspiracy theories are so popular, and other mystic and paranormal accounts. With only possibilities and the unproven, you can prove anything you like. There's evidence enough for a sufficiently well-argued theory to destroy the text altogether.